EricWiener Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 The only hole in your theory is that, especially with 2 outs or nobody on, striking out gives the batter zero chance to get on base, whereas, any other situation runs the chance of producing a base runner. So lining out, flying out, grounding out all give the chance of prolonging an inning, striking out does not. So it's anything but "the same" It is exactly the same as any other out. At most, your premise is that there is a chance that a ball in play, that is not a hit, has a chace to be an error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PitchingWinsGames Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 The only hole in your theory is that, especially with 2 outs or nobody on, striking out gives the batter zero chance to get on base, whereas, any other situation runs the chance of producing a base runner. So lining out, flying out, grounding out all give the chance of prolonging an inning, striking out does not. So it's anything but "the same" It is exactly the same as any other out. At most, your premise is that there is a chance that a ball in play, that is not a hit, has a chace to be an error. Which is why K'ing is generally less valuable than any other out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nny Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I just showed how there is a negative effect...I don't even know what to respond with after showing that and yet you continue to ignore it. Just looking at the comparision of teams run scored is ludicrious. Also do you know about controls, variables, ect for experiments yes? Comparing two teams with similiar OPSs is ridiculous because there is no control in the issue, you're comparing two different teams, two different variables. Experiments need control and everthing you're posting has no control. Scientific method goes far beyond just science class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Experiments need control and everthing you're posting has no control. Scientific method goes far beyond just science class. I am no equipped to perform a population study on run production while at work, but such studies have been performed, and strikeouts have not been found to have a correlation one way or the other. The examples I point out are merely reasons why I think that there is no correlation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nny Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Except I just showed that they did through run value.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexS Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 The only way striking out can be better than not striking out, is if not striking out means hitting into a double play. In a hypothetical situation. Nice... completely pointless, but nice. Here's a hypothetical Player on 2nd, one out. Strikout, next player gets a shot. Hot smash caught by the shortstop, toss to 2nd baseman... double play. Hey, my hypothetica is just as pointless as yours. A strikeout is the same as any other out with nobody on, and with 2 outs. A strikeout is better than a ground out with a man on first. So for upwards of 70% of PAs, a SO is better or at least not worse than any other out. Except the part where you completely ignored my saying UNLESS you hit into a double play. If it is an out one way or another, then unless there is a DP striking out is worse. Not by a lot, but slightly. Obviously with no-one on it doesn't matter. However with two outs putting the ball in play is FAR superior because you give yourself a chance to reach base. Where as on a strikeout you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I'm undecided at the moment but something sounds off to me regarding the argument "there is no correlation between runs scored and strikeouts, so strikeouts are inconsequential." While I agree that studies have found no such correlation, I'm having my doubts that it is a definitive response to the problem. Basically I'm saying even if there is a worthy reason, I'm having trouble finding one. Of course, as we know there is such a correlation between runs scored and OBP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 Except the part where you completely ignored my saying UNLESS you hit into a double play. If it is an out one way or another, then unless there is a DP striking out is worse. Not by a lot, but slightly. Obviously with no-one on it doesn't matter. However with two outs putting the ball in play is FAR superior because you give yourself a chance to reach base. Where as on a strikeout you don't. I didn't ignore it, I disregarded it as spurious. Except for death, people live forever. Double plays are more common than errors... by a lot. Putting the ball in play with 2-outs is not "FAR superior" when you compare 'in play outs/errors' to strikeouts, at best it is marginally better and that advantage is easily devoured by GDP numbers with < 2 outs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I'm undecided at the moment but something sounds off to me regarding the argument "there is no correlation between runs scored and strikeouts, so strikeouts are inconsequential." While I agree that studies have found no such correlation, I'm having my doubts that it is a definitive response to the problem. Basically I'm saying even if there is a worthy reason, I'm having trouble finding one. Of course, as we know there is such a correlation between runs scored and OBP. Many OBP leaders strikeout a lot. If one were to dial down all the way, and find two otherwise nearly identical line drive hitters, then maybe, just maybe, I may want the guy that strikes out less because he has a .37% greater chance to reach on an error. Except that he is probably more than .37% more likely to ground into a double play, and there are 30%+ more DPs than errors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I just showed how there is a negative effect...I don't even know what to respond with after showing that and yet you continue to ignore it. You didn't show anything, you claimed that an average number of strikeouts costs a team runs. To support that claim, you offer.... nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nny Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 mmm sorry, I thought you'd have known about run values (I realize that might come off "offensively" but I don't mean it that way). From hard ball times annual, comparing strike outs to other plays: There?s one table in particular that jumped out at me, and I think it illustrates pretty well why we believe some of the things that we do and are often questioned about. Below are the average run values for each type of possible outcome. Line Drive: .356 Hit By Pitch: .342 Non-Intentional Walk: .315 Intentional Walk: .176 Outfield Fly: .035 Groundball: -.101 Bunts: -.103 Infield Fly: -.243 Strikeout: -.287 http://ussmariner.com/2005/11/28/run-values/ Comparing strike outs to other outs only, from The Book (How I got the run totals): Overall, there's not much to choose between a strikeout or a regular out. The difference is around .01 or .02 runs per out. http://www.tangotiger.net/strikeout.html (Which also goes on to say through a study that changing approach to reduce strike out rates improves a player) You can find more on google if you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 I'm undecided at the moment but something sounds off to me regarding the argument "there is no correlation between runs scored and strikeouts, so strikeouts are inconsequential." While I agree that studies have found no such correlation, I'm having my doubts that it is a definitive response to the problem. Basically I'm saying even if there is a worthy reason, I'm having trouble finding one. Of course, as we know there is such a correlation between runs scored and OBP. The stat with the strong correlation to runs scored is OPS, not OBP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 I'm undecided at the moment but something sounds off to me regarding the argument "there is no correlation between runs scored and strikeouts, so strikeouts are inconsequential." While I agree that studies have found no such correlation, I'm having my doubts that it is a definitive response to the problem. Basically I'm saying even if there is a worthy reason, I'm having trouble finding one. Of course, as we know there is such a correlation between runs scored and OBP. The stat with the strong correlation to runs scored is OPS, not OBP. No, in the past I've seen studies with reasonable correlation (ca 0.9) for both OBP and SLG individually as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 So.....Jorge Cantu...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotcorner Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 So.....Jorge Cantu...... I think we've come to the conclusion he doesn't strike out enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 mmm sorry, I thought you'd have known about run values (I realize that might come off "offensively" but I don't mean it that way). Don't ever worry about that, I am fundamentally impossible to offend over the internet. It is an interesting read, though the first citation deals largely with pitchers, and the second make several assumptions that make the data suspect in a practical manner. In fact, they speak about the very flaw in their data excersize in excluding certain players from the analysis As for Run Values being used as a term, I've seen it refer to mean dozenss of things. The one with some traction in SABR circles is VORP + UZL, which doesn't have an particular impact from Ks. If the .01 runs per out holds up, I would like to see it controlled for OPS, because it is a rarity to have the high-production OPS on a player that doesn't strikeout at least near the league average rate (the 2 that come to mind are Chipper and Pujols - hall of famers as far as I am concerned) and I am not quick to disgregard that trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 The stat with the strong correlation to runs scored is OPS, not OBP. OBP is almost as strong a correlation as OPS. The best correlation I've seen is a figure of OBP*1.5+SLG. It is almost as good a stat for ranking run production as... well... runs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 So.....Jorge Cantu...... Is a pleasant suprise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nny Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 mmm sorry, I thought you'd have known about run values (I realize that might come off "offensively" but I don't mean it that way). Don't ever worry about that, I am fundamentally impossible to offend over the internet. It is an interesting read, though the first citation deals largely with pitchers, and the second make several assumptions that make the data suspect in a practical manner. In fact, they speak about the very flaw in their data excersize in excluding certain players from the analysis As for Run Values being used as a term, I've seen it refer to mean dozenss of things. The one with some traction in SABR circles is VORP + UZL, which doesn't have an particular impact from Ks. If the .01 runs per out holds up, I would like to see it controlled for OPS, because it is a rarity to have the high-production OPS on a player that doesn't strikeout at least near the league average rate (the 2 that come to mind are Chipper and Pujols - hall of famers as far as I am concerned) and I am not quick to disgregard that trend. Although the first site does deal with pitchers, the run value statistics still hold up regardless of pitcher or hitter. And while I agree the study isn't "perfect", the main point was just to show the run value of the strike out in comparision to other outs (Which, if you don't know, is done by analyzing every play that's been in baseball [with editing to eras, since things like the dead ball era would skew things] and seeing the chance a run is scored on the play) and how I got the numbers I posted before. I also agree that getting high OPS players that don't strike out are rare, and again there are certainly more important things than the amount of strike outs (mostly OBP and SLG) but it still doesn't negate the fact that a strikeout still has resulted in less runs than other outs in the overall picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nny Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 So.....Jorge Cantu...... Statisically speaking, he IS as bad as a defender as people said before, and for as fast as his OPS rose 200 points to be above .900, it's dropping nearly as fast. [/hater] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroncoBob27 Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Cantu has had success at the major league level prior to this year and he is having success this year at the major league level (Cantu has also shown that he is not nearly the defensive liability that he has been in the past or that he has been portrayed to be by some posters). Dallas has had neither. Next. And ya gotta remember that Cantu is still learning the position. His errors have been throwing and I feel that will settle down once he better learns the position. He sets himself up well to make the plays (i really like how he gets right in front of grounders hit near where he has set up instead of trying to make ESPN with a side catch, twist, and throw), just gets a little excited on getting the ball to 1B once in a while. He also makes attempts at balls instead of just watching them go by. Plus, he is an upgrade defensively at that position from what we have had ever since Mikey was traded. Seems to me anyone trying to make him sound bad is just pouting over losing Miggy's bat. Makes no sense. As the season progresses Cantu will improve defensively and if Dallas can somehow remain healthy enough to get the ABs in at AAA he may become trade bait. When we went to Lakeland in ST to watch the Tigers and Indians play we were talking to some pretty nice Tigers fans. When Miggy was introduced I told them that is their near future DH. They were astounded I would say that because of the contract they had just given him and because of his age. I just told them they would see what I mean in the first month or so of the season. Now Miggy has been moved to 1B, and it is apparent he will soon become the youngest and most expensive DH in MLB. An injury to Sheff this year and they make the switch. Sheff gone after this season and they make the switch. Bet on it. IMO, it's a damn shame a cow had to give it's life so he could have something dangling from his left hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 So.....Jorge Cantu...... Statisically speaking, he IS as bad as a defender as people said before, and for as fast as his OPS rose 200 points to be above .900, it's dropping nearly as fast. [/hater] Career wise, yes. But maybe he worked hard on defensive drills in the offseason and the results are showing? Cantu keeps himself in excellent physical shape (something that couldn't be said about Cabrera last year) and I've read he implemented intense core workouts as well in the offseason. All of this could translate into a better defender (and overall baseball player) I guess what I'm trying to say is that rather than blindly hating the guy, give him the benefit of the doubt THIS year until he regresses to the mean in which you are referring to. You have to admit, he has been a pleasant suprise. Enjoy the ride for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordMagnus Posted April 29, 2008 Author Share Posted April 29, 2008 So if they don't trade Cantu, how about McPherson. Can we get anything for him? I think we already have some depth with Helms or possibly Andino being able to play third. The reason I started this topic is because its rare for this organization to keep players that they sign to one year contract. We've seen it before. Yeah, Cantu may be the best "stop gap" guy the organization has brought in so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 Career wise, yes. But maybe he worked hard on defensive drills in the offseason and the results are showing? Cantu keeps himself in excellent physical shape (something that couldn't be said about Cabrera last year) and I've read he implemented intense core workouts as well in the offseason. All of this could translate into a better defender (and overall baseball player) I guess what I'm trying to say is that rather than blindly hating the guy, give him the benefit of the doubt THIS year until he regresses to the mean in which you are referring to. You have to admit, he has been a pleasant suprise. Enjoy the ride for a while. He is a poor defensive player that gives his all. He will never be good, but he is working hard to be adequate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 I'm undecided at the moment but something sounds off to me regarding the argument "there is no correlation between runs scored and strikeouts, so strikeouts are inconsequential." While I agree that studies have found no such correlation, I'm having my doubts that it is a definitive response to the problem. Basically I'm saying even if there is a worthy reason, I'm having trouble finding one. Of course, as we know there is such a correlation between runs scored and OBP. The stat with the strong correlation to runs scored is OPS, not OBP. No, in the past I've seen studies with reasonable correlation (ca 0.9) for both OBP and SLG individually as well. I don't buy those studies. I'm not a statistician but I do know how to use excel and used it to calculate the correlation between runs scored and OBP and OPS for the NL for each of the last three seasons. 2007 Runs & OBP - .855 Runs & OPS - .964 2006 Runs & OBP - .747 Runs & OPS - .948 2005 Runs & OBP - .802 Runs & OPS - .882 I'll bet you get similar results for just about every other year. OPS rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.